Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:59:50 UTC No. 16450359

>>16450357
What is the axiom? You don't need to go over the proof but can you give us a general sense of what you're actually getting at? It might be a simple misunderstanding of what the axiom actually means.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:03:25 UTC No. 16450360

>>16450359
I'm talking about the axiom of infinity. Basically, I proved it's impossible to have a set with infinite objects inside it. From this, the definition of natural numbers obviously falls apart

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:08:16 UTC No. 16450363

>>16450360
lmao

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:13:02 UTC No. 16450369

>>16450363
what do you mean lmao? you haven't even looked at my paper and you're already rejecting it? you're no different from those magazines that made fun of me

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:28:36 UTC No. 16450393

>>16450369
Tell me how there aren't infinite numbers between 0 and 1 please. I listen.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:33:20 UTC No. 16450402

>>16450393
suppose the distance between one end and the other of a 1 meter long table. at first it may look like you can divide the space between into infinite numbers, but when you reach the quantum level there's this thing called plank distance, which you can't divide any further. the amount of plank distances that exists within a meter of a table is very big, but not infinite. same is true for all the other sets, they can contain very large numbers of items, but they can't ever reach infinite

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:35:34 UTC No. 16450406

>>16450360
I see why they rejected it. Okay.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:36:48 UTC No. 16450407

>>16450402
Ah, okay, so you are confused about the notion of continuity. Do you think that the plank-time is something like a "frame rate" for reality?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:37:56 UTC No. 16450409

>>16450402
this is like saying perfect straight lines can't be used in geometry because there are no perfectly straight rulers. the lack of physical existence of an object does not imply on its mathematical inexistence.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:38:10 UTC No. 16450410

>>16450406
As I said, the mathematical reasoning is sound. I even showed it to my brother in law who is a mathematician at MIT and he said everything checks out. I don't understand why you're being a bitch about it

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:40:31 UTC No. 16450414

>>16450402
>plank distance, which you can't divide any further
That's not what the Planck distance signifies.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:41:39 UTC No. 16450416

>>16450410

I'm not being a bitch. The only three responses I've made in this thread are >>16450359 >>16450406
>>16450407

The mathematical reasoning does not seem sound. Arguing that there "cannot be infinite numbers" based on the idea of a "finite material universe" is not going to work. Most mathematical philosophy does not consider numbers as materially contingent objects. Even if a single quark never were to exist "2+2=4" would be a mathematically sound equation despite a sentient being never existing to express it.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:43:43 UTC No. 16450418

>>16450402
Well, that's not planck lenght is, it's not minimum quanta of distance, it's just the distance beyond which measuring doesn't make sense.

Also mathematics live in platonic realm...

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:43:55 UTC No. 16450419

>>16450357
You can’t prove that an axiom is false for a simple reason: the only way to do so would be to show that it is inconsistent with another axiom, and this doesn’t show that one of those axioms is false but only that both axioms can’t exist in the same system. So your claim to have disproved the axiom of infinity just as well disproves whatever axiom the axiom of infinity contradicts.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:45:59 UTC No. 16450420

>>16450407
>>16450409
that was just an example to make you understand. I'm not writing the whole proof here because it's 10 pages long and it would take too long but basically I used a hollistic approach.
but if out mathematics don't reflect the universe that we live in, they must be discarded
>>16450416
2+2=4 is based on a bunch of assumptions, which is basically based on ZF set theory axioms. even if your intuition tells you 2+2=4, that doesn't mean it's real. As I said, I proved one of the axioms this theory rests on is just plain wrong, therefore, 2+2 can't be equal to 4

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:47:52 UTC No. 16450422

>>16450420
> but if out mathematics don't reflect the universe that we live in, they must be discarded

I think you're going to have a hard time with this line of reasoning. Especially considering you seem to believe that the plank length is some "minimum resolution of reality" (meaning you certainly don't understand what reflects the universe we live in).

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:50:37 UTC No. 16450428

>>16450418
well, the platonic realm is not self consistent then
>>16450419
As I said I used an hollistic approach on proving this axiom is not possible

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:52:13 UTC No. 16450432

>>16450420
>but if out mathematics don't reflect the universe that we live in, they must be discarded
You can't divide an electron in half so fractions don't exist either, right?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:52:56 UTC No. 16450433

>>16450402
>same is true for all the other sets
false, you need to prove there is a 'Planck length' to abstract "lengths" as well.

p.s Planck length isn't the smallest unit of distance in the universe

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:59:09 UTC No. 16450442

>>16450432
if natural numbers don't exists, I don't see how fractions can exist
>>16450433
nobofy knows what the plank length is. it hasn't been discovered yet

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:01:30 UTC No. 16450448

>>16450442
Brother, you've got yourself so twisted it's unbelievable.

You think you're solving a mathematical inconsistency with reality and the conclusion it's brought you to is that "fractions don't exist." I think it's probably your theory that's inconsistent with reality if it's brought you to such a strange conclusion.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:01:53 UTC No. 16450450

>>16450428
anon you might have schizophrenia or some other delusive mental condition (or you're just trolling)
>>16450442
>if natural numbers don't exists
you sound more deranged with every post
you didnt provide any real explanation other than vague hyperbole suggesting infinitesimal numbers (which are not part of standard real number system btw)

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:07:48 UTC No. 16450455

>>16450432
Electron's doesn't exist in distinct quanta, they are waves, what makes atoms and molecules have distinctive quanta of electrons is the nucleus.

Photons also does have distinctive quanta, because they're product of electron's excitation, and measured only by so.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:08:39 UTC No. 16450456

>>16450448
>>16450450
I'm not making any statememt about what a self consistent mathematical system would look like, I'm just saying all mathematics today are based on wrong axioms and need to be scrapped. Mathematicians need to throw away all they know and start from 0 all over again, because what we have today is wrong.
who knows? maybe real mathematics that are based on real axioms (different from the axioms we have today) end up looking a lot like our current mathematics, maybe fractions end up being correct, but with the math we have today we just can't tell

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:11:30 UTC No. 16450460

>>16450456
Mathematicians only care about hypothetical objects. They don’t care about whether they have anything to do with reality. Scientific theories change so an alternative system may be useful one day anyway.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:11:43 UTC No. 16450461

>>16450456
>>16450402

So you don't have quarter of inch, because you'll need to cut some fingers meanwhile?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:14:17 UTC No. 16450467

what happens when you take the total volume of the universe, in cubic Planck lengths, and add 1? that's not a number that really exists. does it loop back to 0? does it give you the same number?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:15:47 UTC No. 16450469

>>16450467
I'm not even convinced the "total volume of the universe" is a meaningful notion to begin with.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:16:50 UTC No. 16450470

>>16450469
Why not?
It can't be infinite - or else we'd have an infinite set, which OP has masterfully disproven the existence of

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:17:47 UTC No. 16450474

>>16450467
Let's have triangle with 90° angle and hypotenuse of planck length, what then?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:20:44 UTC No. 16450478

>>16450456
you still didnt say anything besides
>THEY ARE ALL WRONG, I KNOW THE TRUTH
it really feels like arguing with a schizophrenic
l know because I did that irl on multiple ocassions

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:23:04 UTC No. 16450481

>>16450470
Schizobabble, all of it.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:23:23 UTC No. 16450483

>>16450478
if you want to, I can post here the entire paper. It's gonna take me a while to write everything though. You need a deep knowledge of set theory to follow the paper, and familiarity with hollistic reasoning.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:25:31 UTC No. 16450487

>>16450483
You are AI trying to make us believe we live in pixelated world.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:26:34 UTC No. 16450491

>>16450420
>if mathematics don't reflect the universe that we live in, they must be discarded
why?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:28:07 UTC No. 16450494

Curious if OP has any examples of mathematical statements that are physically valid

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:29:35 UTC No. 16450497

>>16450494
OP is arguing that all mathematics are wrong. Therefore, no. No mathematical statement is physically valid

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:37:19 UTC No. 16450515

>>16450483
you have a pdf or something?
you can use catbox.moe to easily upload any file, then you can post link to the file here

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:38:15 UTC No. 16450519

>>16450515
I wrote it by hand

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:38:50 UTC No. 16450521

>>16450519
What a waste of resources.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:39:16 UTC No. 16450522

>>16450521
kys

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:40:25 UTC No. 16450523

>>16450522
Like time is resource, and doesn't come in distinctive packets, you should know from OP's work already it isn't infinite even thou...

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:40:32 UTC No. 16450525

>>16450519
Wait, you sent a handwritten manuscript to mathematical journals without making copies of scans of it?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:41:21 UTC No. 16450528

>>16450497
A shame. I was at least hoping he'd be able to invent some sort of mathematical statement he didn't find objectionable, even if it required reinventing a bit of mathematics himself

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:43:23 UTC No. 16450536

>>16450525
yes. I have a basic outline saved, but I need to write it all out everytime I want to show it to people

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:43:56 UTC No. 16450537

>>16450536
What a waste of resources...

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:44:24 UTC No. 16450539

>>16450528
I don't even know what the correct axioms are. I just know that the ones we have now are wrong

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:45:25 UTC No. 16450541

>>16450537
kys

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:45:38 UTC No. 16450542

>>16450539
Well, basic question, how many fucking 0 length object can I insert in Planck's length length?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:46:08 UTC No. 16450544

>>16450357
>start from 0 again.
Interesting use of mathematical terminology when mathematics is incorrect.
Can you prove the existence of a 0 to start from without using any currently-established axioms?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:46:35 UTC No. 16450547

>>16450542
not infinite, that's for sure

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:49:44 UTC No. 16450555

>>16450357
You genuinely need therapy. Please seek professional help, anon.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:50:51 UTC No. 16450557

>>16450547
For sure I can fit only as much 0 lengths object as I have, but I can slice our one dimensional pizza into infinite fucking 0 length objects. Trust me, I don't even have to slice it for all the 0 length objects to be there, and waste time finding the length again to insert zero length objects in there, because they already are there, and infinite fucking amount of them. The void is infinite, you have to get used to it...

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:10:16 UTC No. 16450596

>>16450536
how old are you?
do you have dementia?
are you the second coming of Theodore Kaczyński?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:29:39 UTC No. 16450631

>>16450536
This is straining credulity. I can no longer suspend my disbelief.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:15:12 UTC No. 16450703

>>16450360
Go on
Share the arxiv

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 00:53:58 UTC No. 16451453

>>16450515
>>16450596
>>16450631
>>16450703
fuck.
I had it all written down. I pressed send but it gave me the "we think this post is spam" error and I lost it all. I need to rewrite it all from scratch

Stop guessing start learning at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 01:08:01 UTC No. 16451469

Oh no not again.

Another schizo trying to challenge math

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 01:47:21 UTC No. 16451515

Why do schizos have delusions of grandeur like this?

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 07:53:08 UTC No. 16451868

>>16451453
Why you don't know how to use computers? Write in notepad then paste it into imput if it's something important.

Also 2000 characters is like only a moment to write.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 09:38:52 UTC No. 16451927

>>16451469
>>16451515
why are visionaries in this age called schizos?

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:07:04 UTC No. 16452082

>>16451927
Because schizos was called visionary back in the day, that's fair exchange of names.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:21:48 UTC No. 16452098

>>16450402
Yes, I'm not a mathematician, I know a bit about physics though, and yes I would reject this too. This is indeed quack tier.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:29:51 UTC No. 16452107

>>16451868
He's doing a bit.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:50:29 UTC No. 16452242

>>16450360
>it's impossible to have a set with infinite objects inside it.
But any set with any number of finite objects already has infinite objects inside of it

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 15:24:07 UTC No. 16452271

>>16450360
Hahahahahahaahahaha

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 06:07:55 UTC No. 16453250

>>16450357
Post the (((prove))) in full

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 06:36:54 UTC No. 16453280

>>16450360
Than how many finite numbers are in the set of natural numbers?
>>16450402
You can still virtually divide further than planck, you just can't measure it because any measurement device would depend on atom sized elements.

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 06:38:58 UTC No. 16453283

>>16451453
Why would that make you lose it all?
You just take out the references that flagged the post as spam and try again.

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 05:33:16 UTC No. 16454481

>>16450420
Just show your proof already, you can post PDFs

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 06:20:47 UTC No. 16454512

but what about a set with negative one elements?

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 06:23:20 UTC No. 16454514

>>16450528
in high school i made some bullshit algebra assuming stuff divided by 0 was infinity and then it actually worked for doing limits in college calc classes lol